Ocado Innovation v Autostore (CoA, 10 April 2024)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In a decision of 10 April 2024 (UPC_CoA_404/2023), the Court of Appeal dismissed Ocado Innovation’s appeal against the order of the Nordic-Baltic Regional Division granting a member of the public access to the statement of claim filed against the Autostore companies, the action having since ended in a settlement. The decision lays down two principles. The Court of Appeal may sit with three legally qualified judges, without technically qualified judges, where only non-technical issues arise. A reasoned request under Rule 262.1(b) RoP must state the purpose pursued and why access is needed, so that the judge can weigh the applicant’s interest against all the interests listed in Article 45 UPCA, including the integrity of proceedings. This framework, which favours access once proceedings have ended and immediate access where there is a direct interest, governs requests for access to documents before the UPC.

Facts and procedure

On 15 August 2023, a private individual applied under Rule 262.1(b) RoP for access to, among other things, the statement of claim in Ocado’s infringement action (UPC_CFI_11/2023) (paragraph 1). On 17 October 2023, the Nordic-Baltic Regional Division granted access after redaction of personal data, holding that the written procedure is in principle public and that a credible explanation suffices unless confidentiality is required (paragraph 2). Ocado appealed, seeking refusal of access. It argued that access is justified only after a decision or where there is a direct interest, and relied on the confidentiality of the settlement reached in the meantime (paragraphs 3 to 7). The oral hearing took place on 12 March 2024 before a panel of three legally qualified judges.

The applicable law

Article 9(1) UPCA provides that the Court of Appeal sits with three legally qualified and two technically qualified judges, while Article 9(2) UPCA covers cases heard by three legally qualified judges (paragraph 15). Article 10(1) UPCA makes the register public, Article 45 UPCA makes proceedings public unless confidentiality is required in the interest of a party or other affected persons, or in the general interest of justice or public order, and Article 52 UPCA shows that the written procedure is part of the proceedings (paragraph 40). Rule 262.1(b) RoP makes written pleadings and evidence available to the public upon reasoned request, the judge-rapporteur deciding after consulting the parties. Rule 262.3 RoP governs applications for access to information withheld as confidential (paragraphs 41 and 46).

Question

May the Court of Appeal sit without technically qualified judges on a purely procedural issue, and what must a reasoned request for access to the file of proceedings ended by settlement contain?

Decision

On composition, Article 9(1) UPCA is not exhaustive: technically qualified judges are assigned to an existing panel according to the « field of technology concerned », which presupposes a technical issue, the Statute and the Rules of Procedure provide for other compositions, down to a single judge, and efficiency, the urgency of procedural appeals and the national models on which the UPC draws support this reading (paragraphs 16 to 37). A panel of three legally qualified judges therefore does not breach Article 6 ECHR where no technical issue arises (paragraph 38).

On access, the public’s interest must be weighed against all the interests in Article 45 UPCA: protection of confidential information and personal data, but also the general interest of justice, which includes the integrity of proceedings, and public order, for instance where a request is abusive (paragraph 43). A reasoned request must therefore specify the documents, the purpose pursued and why access is needed. It differs from an application under Rule 262.3 RoP (paragraphs 44 to 46). The general interest in understanding the decision and scrutinising the Court usually arises after the decision, while the integrity of proceedings mainly matters while they are pending (paragraphs 47 to 50). Where proceedings end without a decision, for example by settlement, the balance usually favours access, subject to personal data and confidential information, and the confidentiality of the settlement is no bar (paragraphs 51 and 52). A direct interest, such as that of a competitor or licensee, may justify immediate access, if necessary subject to a confidentiality obligation until the proceedings end (paragraphs 53 and 54). Here the interest relied on was general, the request was not abusive, the proceedings had ended and no confidentiality request had been made: the appeal was dismissed, with no costs order (paragraphs 55 to 57).

Key points for practice

• The Court of Appeal may decide without technically qualified judges where the appeal raises only non-technical issues (paragraph 36).
• A request under Rule 262.1(b) RoP must identify the documents, the purpose pursued and why access is needed, to allow the balancing required by Article 45 UPCA (paragraphs 43 and 44).
• Once proceedings have ended, including by settlement, access is usually granted, subject to personal data and confidential information (paragraphs 51 and 52).
• Practical point: a party wishing to keep material from the public must seek confidentiality under Rule 262.2 RoP, as the confidentiality of a settlement does not close the file (paragraphs 52 and 55).

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts. 8(5), 9, 10(1), 18, 41, 43, 45, 52 and 74(1)

Statute of the Unified Patent Court

Arts. 3(4), 21(2) and (3) and 24(2)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 102, 220.4, 223.4, 232.2, 233, 254.2, 262, 314, 332, 333, 334, 345 and 365.2

Other provisions

European Convention on Human Rights, Art. 6, Regulation (EU) 2016/679

Case law cited

OPPO v Panasonic, Court of Appeal, 20 December 2023 (UPC_CoA_478/2023)

Related decisions

• Ocado Innovation v Autostore AS, 17 October 2023, order of the Nordic-Baltic Regional Division under appeal.

Prepared by Dhenne Avocats from the official decision, consulted on 10 October 2026. The database is updated every week, on Friday. Only the official text is authoritative.